Text 718, 96 rader
Skriven 2004-10-10 11:14:00 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
    Kommentar till text 715 av Thom LaCosta (1:261/1352.0)
Ärende: FidoNews 21:38 [09/09]: Fidonews Information
====================================================
Hello Thom,

 > > If I recall correctly, you attempted to wrest control of
 > > HAM echo from the listed moderator.  The attempt failed.

 >  MvdV> That was not a hijack. I took charge of an echo that was
 >  MvdV> abandoned by its moderator.

 > The echo was not abandoned by the moderator...

Yes it was. The rules posting had stopped, the moderator was nowhere to be seen
and had dissappeared from the nodelist. He did not emerge as a user on another
system either. He was gone.

 > you tried to make the case that it was, and not only did the
 > moderator, Roy Witt, disagree with your premise,

The ex-moderator did not agree or disagree, he was absent! That his absence
ater turned out to be of temporary nature and that he give his opinion after
the fact is irrelevant.

 > but many of the echo participants didn't agree with you.

Irrelevant.

 >  MvdV> Completely in agreement with the
 >  MvdV> rules and customs here.

 > But the echo that you attempted to wrest away from Mr. Witt
 > had for years operated under the rules that are recognized
 > by the ditribtion systems and the echolist.

So? Where does it say that therefore it has to be that way forever?

By your own words, it is the moderator's choice. So a new moderator came along
and he choose to do thing different.

 >  MvdV> The attempt did indeed fail because the (mainly Z1)
 >  MvdV> participants and the Z1 distributors would not accept
 >  MvdV> a moderator that choose to ignore the elist.

 > No, it's more correct to say that the attempt(and I see
 > you're agreeing that you attempted to wrest control of the
 > echo away from the listed moderator)

I see that you are putting words into my mouth. I did NOT agree to the "wrest
control" part. Merely that the attempt to assume the moderator position failed.

Ans I object to the use of "wrest control" in this contexts. i find it abusive
and annoying. Please refrain from using this term in relation to my attempt to
assume moderatorship of the HAM echo. Or any other echo where this might occur
in future.

Consider that some toime ago I used the term "echolist maffia". You asked me to
stop using the term and I agreed. If that too turns out to be a one way street,
I might reconsider.

 > failed because the distribtion systems have a requirement
 > that the moderator of an echo they carry is listed as the
 > moderator in the echolist.

So then why didn't they drop it from the backnone?

 > You couldn't become listed as moderator in the Echolist
 > database because the listing was current

If it is merely a datbase for information purposes, it was obviously not
"current" as it did not reflect the fact that mr Witt had disappeared.

 > and you did not have the password.

I do not need the password if I do not wish to use the system.

 >  MvdV> So much for moderator's choice. Thank you for
 >  MvdV> proving my point.

 > The moderator has a choice of particpating in a system and
 > following the rules of that system.  Mr, Witt, the listed
 > moderator, had the choice to have his echo carried and
 > having it listed in the echobase.

You are contradicting yourself. If you refer to the person that is listed as
the moderator, you can not say that he/she has that choice. His right of choice
only remains valid as long as he chooses to remain listed. That is not free
choice.

 > If Mr. Witt had decided not to exercise his choice to
 > participate, you or anyone else willing to follow the rules
 > could have listed the echo.

I was not interested in listing the echo.

Cheers, Michiel

--- InterMail 229kx
 * Origin: If privacy is outlawed, only outlaws have privacy. (2:280/5555)